Christians are anti-science.

[PostmodernProphet]

sorry ItN, but I don't read amazonerd's posts....

 

[Jerome]

You see this a lot on the forums. Some ignorant, hateful atheist claiming that Christians don't believe in science or are scientifically illiterate.
Guess again.
In the last 100 years

Nobel prizes:

Chemistry: 72.5 percent were awarded to Christians
Physics: 62 percent were awarded to Christians.
Medicine/Physiology: 54 percent were awarded to Christians.

A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

Any questions?

I don't believe that Christians are necessarily anti-science, but your example of Nobel prize winners is zero evidence to rebut that. It's been virtually mandatory for all people -- including scientists -- to claim a religious faith of some sort until VERY recently. Being openly atheist is a death sentence in many countries to this day.

 

[Jerome]

You are correct. There are two theories in discussion here, which Cypress is conflating as the same theory:

The Theory of Evolution, created by the ancient Greeks, which is not falsifiable. It states that present day life evolved from more primitive life.
The Theory of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution proposed by Darwin. It has been falsified. It states that present day life is the result of a 'natural selection' of a wider variety of life. Unfortunately for Darwin, this theory is a paradox.

If you prove this, you'll be the most famous scientist in history, and you'll be one of those Nobel laureates in the OP.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Being openly atheist is a death sentence in many countries to this day.

good times.....

 

[Into the Night]

sorry ItN, but I don't read amazonerd's posts....

What have I posted about Amazon? I don't even work for Amazon.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't believe that Christians are necessarily anti-science, but your example of Nobel prize winners is zero evidence to rebut that. It's been virtually mandatory for all people -- including scientists -- to claim a religious faith of some sort until VERY recently. Being openly atheist is a death sentence in many countries to this day.

Nope. Never was mandatory to claim a religious faith in science. Science is not religion nor politics. It is just a set of falsifiable theories. Anyone can be inspired to a new theory of science. People of all faiths have been so inspired.

 

[Into the Night]

If you prove this, you'll be the most famous scientist in history, and you'll be one of those Nobel laureates in the OP.

Prove what? The the Theory of Evolution is a religion, or that Darwins's theory of Natural Selection has been falsified? Why would that involve a Nobel prize at all? You don't get to speak for Alfred Nobel nor his estate. You only get to speak for you.

 

[Jerome]

Nope. Never was mandatory to claim a religious faith in science. Science is not religion nor politics. It is just a set of falsifiable theories. Anyone can be inspired to a new theory of science. People of all faiths have been so inspired.

So how the fuck do you have a survey of the religious preferences of all Nobel winners, dumbass?

 

[Jerome]

Prove what? The the Theory of Evolution is a religion, or that Darwins's theory of Natural Selection has been falsified? Why would that involve a Nobel prize at all? You don't get to speak for Alfred Nobel nor his estate. You only get to speak for you.

I'm speaking for the entire scientific community. Evolution is fact, dipshit. It's an organizing principle of biology (like gravity is to astrophysics), and it's never been falsified.

 

[Into the Night]

So how the fuck do you have a survey of the religious preferences of all Nobel winners, dumbass?

Science is not a Nobel prize.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm speaking for the entire scientific community.

You don't get to speak for the entire scientific community. Science is not a community. You only get to speak for you.

Evolution is fact, dipshit.

Evolution exists.

It's an organizing principle of biology

Nope. It doesn't organize anything. That would presuppose intelligence.

(like gravity is to astrophysics),

Gravity doesn't organize anything either.

and it's never been falsified.

The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. The Theory of Evolution remains a circular argument...and a religion. The Theory of Natural Selection results in a paradox.

 

[Cypress]

"Into the Night": literally wrong all the bloody time

I had to stop reading at your first sentence, because as per usual you made a statement that is demonstrably false:

There is no such thing as a 'philosopher of science'!

"Philosophy of science, the study, from a philosophical perspective, of the elements of scientific inquiry."

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-science

A hypothesis is not a theory. You test theories, not a hypothesis associated with a theory!.

Encyclopedia Britannica: "Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis."

Into the Night: "There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university!"

Stanford University Department of Statistics
https://statistics.stanford.edu/about/welcome

University of California* Berkley Department of Statistics
https://statistics.berkeley.edu/

(Theory of pangenesis?) Darwin NEVER made any such theory!

"Charles Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis"
Source: Arizona State University
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/charles-darwins-theory-pangenesis

Into the Night: When you study quantum physics, you will be studying math, primarily probability math, but also some in statistics. It is NOT science!!* It is math.

"Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics relating to the very small."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html

There is no such thing as a 'provisional theory'!

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory."

- Professor Steven J. Hawking
https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/08/20/stephen-hawking-a-brief-history-of-time-theory/

 

[Cypress]

“It would be completely non-scientific to ignore that possibility just because it doesn’t conform with some preexisting philosophical prejudices,” says Sean Carroll, a physicist at Caltech, who called for the “retirement” of the falsifiability principle in a controversial essay for Edge last year. Falsifiability is “just a simple motto that non-philosophically-trained scientists have latched onto,” argues Carroll. He also bristles at the notion that this viewpoint can be summed up as “elegance will suffice,” as Ellis put it in a stinging Nature comment written with cosmologist Joe Silk.

“Elegance can help us invent new theories, but does not count as empirical evidence in their favor,” says Carroll. “The criteria we use for judging theories are how good they are at accounting for the data, not how pretty or seductive or intuitive they are.”

But Ellis and Silk worry that if physicists abandon falsifiability, they could damage the public’s trust in science and scientists at a time when that trust is critical to policymaking. “This battle for the heart and soul of physics is opening up at a time when scientific results—in topics from climate change to the theory of evolution—are being questioned by some politicians and religious fundamentalists,” Ellis and Silk wrote in Nature.https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/

I have taken courses from Professor Sean Carol, and respect his insights because he is trained as both a physicist and as a philosopher. Albert Einstein was once asked why his mind was so much more creative than garden variety physicists, and he responded it was because he studied not only physics, but also philosophy, history, theology, and a broad range of intellectual traditions. This obviously trained his mind to think more creatively and outside the box which constrained most physicists.

As for the criteria of falsifiability, I do not obsess about it. I only brought it up because an evolution denier on this thread obviously latched onto the word like a leech, after reading something about it on a rightwing blog.

I simply highlighted the fact that Karl Popper, the seminal founding figure in the criteria of falsifiability approach, ultimately came to believe that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable -- marking it as good science.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm speaking for the entire scientific community. Evolution is fact, dipshit. It's an organizing principle of biology (like gravity is to astrophysics), and it's never been falsified.

Science is not a community, and you do not get to speak for it. You only get to speak for yourself.

The Theory of Evolution is religion, not a fact. You don't even know what a fact is, obviously...

The Theory of Evolution CAN'T be falsified; it is a theory about a past unobserved event. It is a religion.

Evolution, however, exists in nature.

 

[Jerome]

Science is not a Nobel prize.

Seriously, are you touched in the head?

 

[gfm7175]

Cypress still can't think for himself

I had to stop reading at your first sentence, because as per usual you made a statement that is demonstrably false:

No, he was correct.

... deleted Encyclopedia Britannica, Stanford University Department of Statistics, University of California Berkley Department of Statistics, Arizona State University, livescience.com, brainpickings.org...

False Sources summarily dismissed. Start thinking for yourself for a change...

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I simply highlighted the fact that Karl Popper, the seminal founding figure in the criteria of falsifiability approach, ultimately came to believe that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable -- marking it as good science.

can't help the fact he and you have fucked up.......but as long as we both agree that the belief that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is NOT science or falsifiable I see nothing else to argue about.....

 

[Cypress]

can't help the fact he and you have fucked up.......but as long as we both agree that the belief that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is NOT science or falsifiable I see nothing else to argue about.....

I am not surprised you attempt to claim victory by putting words in other people's mouths. Are you not infamous for altering other people's posts?

 

[Into the Night]

I had to stop reading at your first sentence, because as per usual you made a statement that is demonstrably false:
...deleted spam, misquotes, and Holy Links...

You are just repeating your inanity now.

No argument presetned. False authorities. Contextomy fallacies. Spamming. Repetition fallacies. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

I have taken courses from Professor Sean Carol, and respect his insights because he is trained as both a physicist and as a philosopher. Albert Einstein was once asked why his mind was so much more creative than garden variety physicists, and he responded it was because he studied not only physics, but also philosophy, history, theology, and a broad range of intellectual traditions. This obviously trained his mind to think more creatively and outside the box which constrained most physicists.

As for the criteria of falsifiability, I do not obsess about it. I only brought it up because an evolution denier on this thread obviously latched onto the word like a leech, after reading something about it on a rightwing blog.

I simply highlighted the fact that Karl Popper, the seminal founding figure in the criteria of falsifiability approach, ultimately came to believe that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable -- marking it as good science.

The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. It is not known whether that theory if True or False. It cannot be tested. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. It remains a circular argument...and a religion.
The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. It creates a paradox.